Young v. Toronto Star Newspapers

Young v. Toronto Star Newspapers

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge: the October 20, 1998 article bore defamatory meanings that a reasonable reader would understand as asserting Dr. Young pressured a scientist and contributed to a mistrial; the article failed the statutory threshold of a fair and accurate contemporaneous report under s.4(1)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C40543
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent (appellant by Way of Cross Appeal): Dr. James G. Young; Defendants / Appellants (respondents by Way of Cross Appeal): Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. and Tracey Tyler
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/libel) / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (court of Appeal Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of Rouleau J. in favour of Dr. Young upheld.
Legal Topics
Libel, Publication Ban, Absolute Privilege (s.4(1) Libel and Slander Act), Qualified Privilege, Justification, Damages (general, Aggravated, Punitive), Costs, Malice, Reasonable Statement of Explanation or Contradiction
Source Language
english
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure (publication Bans) Libel Publication Ban Absolute Privilege (s.4(1) Libel and Slander Act) Qualified Privilege +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. James G. Young

Plaintiff / Respondent (appellant by Way of Cross Appeal)

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. and Tracey Tyler

Defendants / Appellants (respondents by Way of Cross Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation/libel) / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (court of Appeal Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the October 20, 1998 Toronto Star article was defamatory
  2. 2 Whether s.4(1) Libel and Slander Act absolute privilege applies to contemporaneous court reporting where parts of the proceedings were subject to a publication ban
  3. 3 Whether reporters must take into account proceedings covered by a publication ban when assessing fairness and accuracy

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge: the October 20, 1998 article bore defamatory meanings that a reasonable reader would understand as asserting Dr. Young pressured a scientist and contributed to a mistrial; the article failed the statutory threshold of a fair and accurate contemporaneous report under s.4(1) because it presented counsel's assertions as facts and drew impermissible inferences; proceedings heard in the jury's absence that were subject to a publication ban were irrelevant to the applicability of s.4(1) protection on these facts; damages and costs awarded at trial were not demonstrably unreasonable and were upheld; appeals and cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment of Rouleau J. in favour of Dr. Young upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
  • General damages affirmed for Dr. James G. Young: $100,000 reduced by 10% under s.10 of the Libel and Slander Act to $90,000